If 2009 was the year of “Nine,” “9” and “District 9,” then 2010 is the year of 10, as in 10 different nominations, including “District 9,” for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

This should boost the ratings a bit, making room for crowd pleasers, but unfortunately it could also end up making the losing films the Ralph Naders of the Oscars, spreading the vote too thin instead of packing all the like-minded votes behind a deserved winner. We will find out on the fateful night of March 7.

As is known by any of the 12 people who regularly watch the entire Academy Awards telecast (yet it’s still the focal point of many articles around this time of year), the Academy’s opinion can sometimes be a little shaky, as shown by movies like “There Will Be Blood” and “Pulp Fiction” not winning the coveted Best Picture statue, and movies like “Crash” winning it.

Many articles will be written about what will win the tiny naked gold man — but not this one, oh no. This one will be about what should win the Oscar. We’ll see if the Academy’s taste is as good as mine in March.

With Best Supporting Actor, Christoph Waltz will almost undoubtedly win, deservedly so, for his role as Hans Landa in “Inglorious Basterds.” That one’s really not debatable. Woody Harrelson was spot on in “The Messenger,” but, well, Waltz was better. That’s why he’s going to win.

Mo’Nique deserves the Best Supporting Actress statue, going from her stand-up comedy roots and transforming into Mary Jones, the abusive, brutal mother of the title character in “Precious.”

For Best Actor, Jeff Bridges will get it, but I don’t know if he deserves it or not, as I have not gotten around to seeing “Crazy Heart.” (But I have seen “The Wrestler”, and the lead was great in that, so I’m close). Out of the other four nominees, Collin Firth as the suicidal George in “A Single Man” is the most worthy, doing more by saying less.

If you have seen Gabourey Sibide, who plays Precious in “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” off the screen, you wouldn’t believe that she pulled off the gloomy, illiterate Precious. She’s the exact opposite — a loud, outgoing, cheerful person — off screen.

Maybe it’s just the elite movie snob in me, but I wouldn’t mind Sibide taking home the statue. After all, acting isn’t memorable when you’re playing a mirror image of yourself; it’s when you’re venturing into the depths of the unfamiliar, coming out looking nearly unrecognizable.

But Sandra Bullock will likely take home the prize for her sassy role as Leigh Anne Tuohy. She’s won just about every other award for the role, and the Oscars don’t generally stray too far from the pack. That’s what happens when your ballots are still out after the Golden Globes have already done their thing.

Then there’s the category we all tune in to see: Best Picture. As stated earlier, there are 10 nominees this year, the first time for this to happen since 1943. Ten nominated films is unnecessary, since half the pictures with the nomination seem to be seat fillers of some sort.

It’s great that “Up” is in there and ratings will jump when people tune in to see “The Blind Side” lose, but more is not always merrier.

Many are for “Avatar,” seeing as many posts in my Facebook news feed have run along the lines of “‘Avatar’ is the best movie I have ever seen.” Those people need to see more movies, because, though it’s quite the visual spectacle, as a device for storytelling, James Cameron’s movie falls on its big, flat blue face. Just because everyone saw it doesn’t mean it’s good.

The film that should win, which only made $12.7 million at the box office, meaning, roughly, only about 1.2 million people saw it in theaters, is “The Hurt Locker.” Its director, Kathryn Bigelow, who deserves Best Director, should have taught her ex-husband Cameron some tips in storytelling when they were married.

Hopefully, the Academy doesn’t go for the popular favorite like the Hollywood Foreign Press did in the Globes, instead recognizing that no matter how much money you spend, no matter what a visual spectacle a movie is, it all comes down to story — something “The Hurt Locker” has and “Avatar” does not.

If you change the name of the characters in a book you’ve already read, but they still do the same thing, you wouldn’t be interested in turning the page. “The Hurt Locker” is a completely original piece of work that brings something more to the cinematic table than innovative, new technology. It is deserving of the win.

Reach the reporter at pmelbour@asu.edu